Americans make war, Canadians keep the peace

It’s all about the symbolism stupid! Daimnation points to an article in the Globe and Mail which questions the results of last weeks poll (Wake up! This is our war, too) on sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Sixty two percent said they didn’t support it but is there more to it?

But what if Strategic Counsel’s question had been
phrased differently? “If you were a member of Parliament, would you
vote to send Canadian peacekeepers to Afghanistan?” I suspect the
results would have been very different, primarily because the word
“peacekeeping” triggers a series of powerful memories and positive
images in the Canadian mind: Lester Pearson’s Nobel Peace Prize; a
Canadian soldier in a blue helmet interposed between warring factions;
the peacekeeping monument in Ottawa, and the widely believed mantra
that, while Americans make war, we Canadians keep the peace.[…]

Let me be clear: Canadian peacekeeping was a useful role for this
country to play. Canadians did important work after the Suez crisis of
1956, in Cyprus, on the Golan Heights, and on the Iran-Iraq border
after the 1988 peace between those two nations. The problem is that
peacekeeping has largely disappeared, replaced in the new world
disorder by much more robust operations run by the UN or other
organizations. The Afghanistan deployment, soon to be controlled by
NATO, is just such an operation. We might call it peace support or
peace enforcement. Our grandfathers would have called it war.[…]

Friday’s poll, however, suggests that Canadians might prefer to stay
home. If so, Canadians need to consider what they want their military
to do in the 21st century. The war on terror is a reality and Canadians
are targets, no matter how we try to convince ourselves that the world
loves us. It doesn’t. Our superpower neighbour, the nation to which 87
per cent of our exports go and on which our security depends, has been
attacked and is still under threat, but somehow Canadians have not
grasped that they are involved. We are. The Canadian troops in Kandahar
are working to prop up a democratically elected government that is
under attack from fundamentalist Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.
Participation in that operation is in Canada’s national interests, and
it is very much in the interests of democracy.

But why did those who responded to the Strategic Counsel poll not
grasp this? The reason, I believe, is that Canadians see Afghanistan as
an American war, a direct response to the al-Qaeda terror attacks of
9/11. That may have been correct in 2002, when the aim was to drive the
Taliban government that sheltered al-Qaeda from power. Today, the goal
is to assist an elected government in establishing itself in the face
of attacks from Taliban remnants. Unfortunately, that difference
doesn’t appear to matter to Canadians. Afghanistan is still the
Americans’ war, George W. Bush’s war, and, automatically, large
majorities of Canadians believe it must be wrong.

Canadian anti-Americanism
is at a record peak in 2006, and this strong feeling colours every
question. (The Americans have noticed, too. During our recent election,
The Washington Post’s Anna Morgan, shocked by the tone of the campaign
she discovered here, reported that “the United States and all its
evils” were a “familiar demon” being employed “to heat Canadian voters
to a frenzy.”)

A mature nation cherishes its history and builds on it. But a mature
nation also understands reality and faces it and acts to protect and
advance its national interests. Peacekeeping is a cherished part of our
past and, even if it has dwindled in utility, it might once again
become important. But the reality now is one of terror attacks on the
democracies and those struggling to build free societies. Canada’s
national interests demand that we employ the Canadian Forces to help
the new democracies and protect the old. It is long past time for the
Canadian public to recognize what is at stake and to support their
government and their soldiers in advancing their country’s — and the
world’s — interests.

Canada has taken command of coalition troops in southern Afghanistan today. Whether we like it or not we are there for the long-haul and its time to face reality.

These posts just write themselves

Attached is the McNally Robinson Media Release for February 27, and below are some highlights.

Welcome
to Freedom To Read Week! Freedom to Read Week is an annual event that
encourages Canadians to think about and reaffirm their commitment to
intellectual freedom, which is guaranteed them under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

McNally Robinson is hosting four events celebrating and supporting our freedom to read.

Chris
Crutcher will be in the store on Wednesday, March 1 at 7:00pm to read
from The Sledding Hill. Crutcher was named a Celebration of Free Speech
& Its Defenders honoree in 2005 by the US National Coalition
Against Censorship for his tireless work in defense of free-speech.

The
2006 Freedom of Expression Award will be presented on Friday, March 3
at 7:00pm. This award recognizes a distinguished Albertan for their
contributions to the freedom of speech and the freedom to read. The
event is organized by the Calgary Freedom to Read Week Committee and
the Writers Guild of Alberta and hosted by past winner and QR77 News
anchor Tony King.

We
will also be launching our first ever 24 Hour Marathon (runs from
9:00pm Friday to 9:00pm Saturday). For 24 straight hours a variety of
readers will contribute their voices to keeping a continuous string of
words in the air to support Freedom To Read Week.

On
Saturday, March 4 at 8:00pm we wrap up Freedom to Read Week by toasting
the many readers who kept words alive and aloud during our 24 hour
marathon. The marathon closes with a final hour of readings from some
of the best-known challenged and banned books of all-time.

Upper House update

On the same day as Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces the official appointment of Michael Fortier to the Senate (the release has been e-mailed to journalists, and it should be up on the PM's website, here, soon), comes word that Harper has told Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to expect Senate elections this fall.

CP reports: "Harper also promised to give the next available Senate seat [presumably a seat from Alberta -- ed.] to Bert Brown, one of four senators-in-waiting chosen by Alberta voters in the 2004 provincial election, Klein said."

Still unclear, though, is whether the new senatorial election process will be a provincial or federal affair. As I noted last week, three of Alberta's four senators-in-waiting are pressing for the former.

The Latest News of the Day

Today's Canada file:

Canada file - Communists looking for more Canadian resources: China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is "eyeing a takeover of a major Canadian oil company - possibly Husky Energy Inc. or Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. - to gain a stake in Alberta's oil sands" (Globe and Mail). The Communists have acquired pieces of Canada's natural resource wealth before (fourth item). Since then, however, the federal government holding out the welcome mat was turfed by Canada's voters (Alberta's welcoming provincial government is still in place). How the new government reacts remains to be seen.

Rogers Cable hates you

Has anyone else in Ontario recently discovered that they've lost Fox News on their cable lineup? A week ago, right before I left Ottawa for Toronto, I called up Rogers to unsubscribe from their magazine subscription, which had become a separately billed item (Negative billing, nice, jerks). I got back last night and discovered I'd lost FNC, which was one of ten digital channels I had chosen for my cable package. The others were all still there. Today I call up Rogers, and they tell me I've never been subscribed to it (I've had it since it aired in December 2004 - after the free trial ended, I dropped MSNBC and asked for Fox). I ask them to list the ten channels I have, and #10 is "Razor", which I've never even heard of. I tell them there's been a mistake, and to drop Razor and put FNC back. She says you can't individually choose Fox News like other channels; it's only available as part of the $8/month News Package. So what else is part of the News package? CNN, CBCNW, ROBTV, CNBC, etc which are all included with the base-analog sub, and MSNBC and BBC World. But, I already have BBC World as one my 10 channels! Why is Fox News getting a special "forbidden unless you cough up extra" status over the other news channels?

First, this bothers me because they're being dishonest. Second, because they're suggesting that I'm insane for thinking that I have actually been subscribed to FNC for the last year. Third, because they're pushing this News Package as some sweet deal when it's all already included on the mandatory analog base, like I'm supposed to be happy.

I hate Rogers and am thinking of cutting them out of the $138 I give them every month. I already left evil Rogers AT&T for Fido, then had Fido bought by Rogers (Ugh! They didn't fail, first month under the "new & improved billing system" and I'd been robbed - another post), but now I'm thinking of ditching @Home (which I'm happy with) for Bell and ditching their TV for DirecTV (still have the dish mounted).

Anyway, I thought you'd all be interested to know of the special status Fox News has been given, placed in a special category over BBC World, etc. If this has also happened to you, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

The Islamic bomb

(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck).The "Islamic bomb" is not nuclear, but totalitarian.

Even before the Islamic suicide terrorist attacks against the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon (the Pentagon!) on September 11, 2001,
the U.S. Government was concerned at the prospect of a nuclear
capability in the hands of the secularist, crypto-Marxist Ba'athist
regime of Saddam's Iraq or the radical Shia regime of Iran.

Iraq's regime was Arab, dominated by Ba'athist Sunnis and a few
Ba'athist Chaldean Christians, and appealed to Muslim sensibilities and
anti-Americanism when it was politically convenient or advantageous.
Iran's regime is Persian, and features Islamicization and
anti-Americanism as core values. The Arab Shia Muslims of Iraq,
however, have found the late, Persian version to be aberrant -- not
true to the teaching of the Twelfth Imam.

Since Saddam's regime was overthrown, the minority Sunnis are no
longer in charge of Iraq, and in a rep-by-pop regime, Iraq would be
dominated by the majority population, the Twelfth-Imam Shia Muslims.
The leading Arab Shia Imams of Iraq have consistently adopted a
position both desirous of political peace and a speedy exit of the
Western soldiers from Iraq. They have frequently countered the less
measured pronouncements of the Persian Shia Mullahs. Meanwhile, the
Wahabist Sunnis and, presumably, the secular Sunni Ba'athists appear to
be doing everything they can to sabotage the institution of a stable
regime in Iraq. They appear to be supported and supplied both by
elements in the remaining Ba'athist regime in Syria and by the Persian
Shias of Iran.

What the Persian Shias, the Wahabist Sunnis, the Ba'athist
insurgents of Iraq, and the Ba'athist regime of Syria have in common is
that they have all given in to what Jean-Francois Revel called "the totalitarian temptation."
All want to defeat dissent and a plurality of institutions' exercising
authority and power in society. All want to centralize control of
public culture and discourse in the hands of the state. All want to
defeat cultures which tolerate and defend dissenting discourse and
which encourage a culture of plural institutions.

Increasingly, there is a "modernist, secular liberal bomb," too, as
adherents to a version of this world view endeavour to enforce it and
defeat dissenting Christian discourse in the public square and the
authority and power of Christian institutions. This is a soft, and
sometimes not so soft, totalitarianism. It's pursued in attempting to silence
Christian views in public discourse and in preventing Christian
institutions -- schools, churches, and fraternal organizations -- from,
say, holding events and renting facilities so as to be consistent with
Christian teaching and conviction.

The push to universalize a certain, modernist, secular liberal
world view is a distortion of the careful "modus vivendi" that was
achieved by the West, building on some 1500 years of Christian
political thought about "dual authority," "evangelical freedom," and
others (see this thread). The constitutional consensus achieved in 17th and 18th-c.
England and her colonies was remarkable, albeit not perfect. Its great
achievements were to allow dissent, to not insist that all think alike,
and to channel agonistic struggle away from violence and into
discursive debate and peaceful protest.

But when certain modernist, secular liberals censor discursive
debate by Christians and when they disqualify Christians from political
institutions, they are upsetting the "modus vivendi." They are giving
in to the totalitarian temptation.

That isn't a nuclear bomb, but it's no less a bomb than the Islamic
bomb, and not different in kind from Islamic totalitarianism.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Close enough?

A lot of folks are, to put it at its mildest, indifferent to Jews. In 2003, a survey by the European Commission found that 59 percent of Europeans regard Israel as the "greatest menace to world peace." Only 59 percent? What the hell's wrong with the rest of 'em? Well, don't worry: In Germany, it was 65 percent; Austria, 69 percent; the Netherlands, 74 percent.

Nope! The survey in question didn't ask anyone which country is the greatest menace to world peace. It didn't even use the word "menace", despite Mark Steyn's quotation marks. Rather, it asked the following (in amusingly stilted English): "For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to the world?"

Still, 74 percent of Dutch people should not think that Israel is a threat to the world, and that's what gets me — the numbers are disturbing enough as they are. When people like Steyn and David Frum misrepresent statistics, they are essentially sabotaging their own writing. It's weird.

Bush Lied People Died

A]s late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office
talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a
nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq’s plasma uranium
program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors
combing Iraq for WMD. This is particularly troubling, since it
indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi
nuclear bomb.

All you can ask is “what if”. It’s no secret that I was against the Iraq war,
mostly because of Colin Powells embarrasing transparent Powerpoint
presentation to the UN Security Council. Maybe there was more to it and
maybe I was wrong. If this plays out at least I’m not alone. H/t Bits Blog

You Couldn't Make This Stuff up

Extremists have been blamed after a cartoon featuring the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was put up in a housing office in Oldham.

Yes, because only an extremist would put up something as threatening as a cartoon. If the BBC is anything like the CBC -- and I believe it is -- aren't "extremists" also what they call people who strap dynamite to themselves and walk into pizza parlours in Tel Aviv, and malls in Netanya?

Is There Something in the Water in Australia?

Something good, I mean. And if so, can we bottle it and import it? As though Australia's Prime Minister weren't amazing enough, what with his having a spine and all, listen to what that country's Treasurer says:

Anyone who believes Islamic sharia law can co-exist with Australian law should move to a country where they feel more comfortable, Treasurer Peter Costello says.All Australian citizens must adhere to the framework in society which maintains tolerance and protects the rights and liberties of all, he said.

Huh? An elected official talking sense? Can you imagine any Canadian politician suggesting such heresies? Our new crew in Ottawa are as pitiful and gutless as those they replaced. And if ever any of them do get some cojones, you know they will be accused of racism and hauled before the human rights commission, pronto. Read the story, and weep with envy.

On the cartoons and terrorist hypocrisy (the short version)

Since the controversy over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons may never go away, I thought I'd bring up (again) a point that has been largely lost in the discussion.

At present, we are being led to believe that the "Muslim world" (keep in mind, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not allowed to speak at all unless it serves the purposes of the ten-cent general, overly powerful political hack, or fatwa-addicted cleric that has the nation in which he or she lives locked in a despotism) is speaking out against the cartoons because of the offense to Islam. This is giving certain apologists the opportunity to mention Iraq, Palestine, and other supposed crimes of the planet's non-Muslims against the faith.

Yet the Chinese Communist Party - a regime that specifically places itself in Muhammed's place as Allah's last prophet, has occupied a Muslim nation for over 56 years (EastTurkestan), and has killed over 210,000 Muslims within that occupied nation through open-air nuclear tests (yes, you read that right) - gets a pass. Osama Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists have demanded the Israelis evacuate Palestine, the Americans leave Iraq, and the Spanish abandon Spain, but they have said absolutely nothing about Communsit China's atrocities - which also include shooting political prisoners, razing mosques to the ground, and banning all East Turkestani children from attending any mosques still standing.

So why would a bunch of violent killers claiming they murder in Islam's name try to remind everyone of the medieval Crusades while staying silent on an occupation during which more Muslims have died than during all eight Crusades combined?

If your answer had something to do with the Communists' aid to terrorists, you're right.

The CCP doesn't want the democratic world to know this, but it is the largest supporter of terrorism on the planet. Among the Communists' beneficiaries are the Iranian mullahcracy, the Syrian Ba'athists, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda itself). No wonder the terrorists keep their mouths shut on East Turkestan, and scream only about actions taken by or in European and North American nations.

So what does this tell us about the supposedly devout Muslim terrorists? It tells me their "faith" is nothing but a cover for their hunger for power and complete lack of respect for human life. There as Muslim as Hitler was Buddhist (that was the faith that saw its swa-stika twisted by the Nazis).

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: for Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Khameini, al-Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi, and all the rest,there is no God but the Chinese Communist Party.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

New Straits Times caves

Upon the Western Standard's
publishing the Danish cartoons Ezra Levant made a telling point as to
how innocuous were the cartoons published by the godless Danes. Who
knew the Danes had a sense of humour? I guess I shouldn't be surprised
. . . the Danes are just being true to their Lutheran heritage of
humour inaugurated by Luther himself, as I pointed out, here.

But getting back to the Western Standard publisher's point about "innocuousity" . . . and his follow-up point, here:
how vehement are the pronouncements of some Muslims and how restrained
is the reaction from Western modernist, secular liberals, in stark
contrast to their reaction over such as the innocuous cartoons.

So,
I wonder . . . How innocuous could a cartoon be and still provoke
outrage from Muslims and modernist, secular liberals? How over-the-top,
inciting-to-hate-and-violence could a pronouncement from an Islamist be
and still bring forth only a blase response from those same modernist,
secular liberals?(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck)

Multiculturalism in Eurabia

This is a fascinating interview with Dalil Boubakeur, France's most influential Muslim leader:

"There is no formula for co-existence between Islam and Europe," says Mr Boubakeur. "All idyllic, unrealistic visions of laissez-faire permissiveness are no good. All overly authoritarian visions are no good either. Islam in the west is a real political problem."

The UK, in particular, has made a "serious error" in "encouraging and accepting" multiculturalism. "The London bombings last year were a brutal wake-up call," he claims.

"We must separate religion from politics at the level of the state. But with a true secularity, not a hypocritical secularity."

Until religion is truly "a private affair" and Muslims are not subjected to discrimination in much of society, divisions will remain. "To break down the suspicion between the two societies, we need true incentives in business, employment and education, to give true equal opportunities."

Warmongers

The mainstream media is generally anti-war. But when the prospect is a civil war in Iraq -- a civil war that would undermine the U.S. and its government's theory of spreading democracy and pursuing the war on terror -- the Left is practically handing out Improvised Explosive Devices.

Good grief

This CP story about Rona Ambrose's Kyoto enthusiasm is troubling. And with Canada's Natural Resources minister being a trial lawyer from Vancouver Island, with no connection or experience in the industry, there seems to be no natural cabinet counterweight to Ambrose's burst of regulatory enthusiasm.

This is an important file to watch, and a key test will be whether or not the Tories repeal the scientifically absurd Liberal regulation that deemed carbon dioxide a "toxic chemical", as a prelude to their $200/ton carbon dioxide tax proposal.

It could be that this CP wire story is confusing the reporter's own ideas with Ambrose's; a careful look at her words does indeed show that she has big "plans"; but whether those plans are voluntary for industry, or whether they are Kyoto-style government regulations and taxes remains to be seen. The idea of "markets" to trade hot air credits is, of course, absurd -- it's an attempt to dress up government regulation in free market drag. There is no natural "market" for the right to exhale carbon dioxide, a harmless gas. It is not something that companies would naturally pay for. It's a forced carbon tax trying to get by under a different name.

I'm worried that Ambrose has more enthusiasm than judgment and experience in the Kyoto file, and will be be easily "managed" by ideological bureaucrats in her department, Peter MacKay-style.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Pot, meet kettle

This is a legitimate news story. And the point of view proposed by Mohamed Elmasry, while illiberal, censorious and dangerous, is something that should be debated.

But could someone please help me understand how Elmasry, who has stated publicly that any adult Jew in Israel is a fair target for a terrorist, can find the chutzpah to call for anti-hate laws?

No; scratch that. It is not hard to understand how such an illiberal person could make such a comment. To Elmasry, the laws of our liberal democracy are merely tools that a foolish and soft West grants him to use to undermine our liberal democracy.

No, my question is more properly: Why do David Rider who wrote this story, and most other Canadian journalists, give Elmasry a pass on his past anti-Jewish comments?

Had they been made by anyone other than a Muslim activist, they would have immediately and permanently marked that someone as outside the norms of our civil society -- someone to be shunned. (How many years, for example, did Jacques Parizeau endure being called "disgraced" or "controversial" for his milder comment about "the ethnic vote"?)

What we have here, paradoxically, is a prejudice against Islam. The media are holding Islam's self-proclaimed spokesmen to lower standards of moral conduct, excusing them for horrendous statements and whitewashing their true nature. That is a soft form of bigotry itself, as it implies that Muslims can do no better, that they are by nature less civilized. It is a cousin of the bigotry that says that Arabs and Muslims can't handle/don't want/aren't ready for democracy.

The fact that it strengthens these Muslim radicals, and suffocates true Muslim moderates, is an unhappy side-effect.

Armenian Protest in Ottawa

This morning dozens of Armenians, accompanied by many police, were on Albert St. in Ottawa with a big float with a figure on top, protesting the destruction of their historic cultural sites by the Azerbaijanis. They were protesting outside of the building housing Ottawa's UNESCO office, and then began to move their protest off to the Azerbaijani embassy.

News of the Day from Communist China

Quote of the day

(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck).Thanks to Anonalogue, I came across this Reuters piece about a very modest request issued by the Vatican:

After
criticising both the cartoons and the violent protests in Muslim
countries that followed, the Vatican this week linked the issue to its
long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited,
sometimes severely, in Muslim countries.

Vatican prelates have
been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and
Nigeria. Turkish media linked the death there to the cartoons row. At
least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious
riots in Nigeria.

"If we tell our people they have no right to
offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us,"
Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State (prime
minister), told journalists in Rome.

Peter Chamberlain, meet Neville MacKay

Such criticism might do a great deal to embitter relations when we on our side are trying to improve them. German Nazis have been particularly annoyed by criticisms in the British press, and especially by cartoons. The bitter cartoons of Low of the Evening Standard have been a frequent source of complaint.

"I think it's dangerous to Canadian citizens . . . who are travelling abroad, where we have seen the reaction that is more extreme and certainly more violent," he said.

"It's also been noted that it may cause a danger to Canadian troops because of the elevated tensions that result from the publication."

"Knowing that there has been loss of life, attacks on embassies, very aggressive actions towards other countries . . . it's not as if anyone can say, 'Well, we couldn't gauge the reaction. We didn't know how the Muslim community would respond,' " he said.

The Mad Doctor

In a recent article, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress attempts to take the west (mostly Americans as typical but mentions Canada) to task for not supporting the elected Hamas:

In the midst of a decades-long struggle for
independence, Palestinians have heroically embraced democracy in order
to structure their political organizations, government, and even battle
plans. The results of their democratic process have made the Western
world including the Canadian government very uncomfortable. But why?

Oh I don’t know, maybe the daily missile launches and the influx of suicide bombers?

Imagine the outcry if Mexico was firing rockets into the
United States daily. How realistic would it be for the American
government to sit back and just watch has rockets reined down on Texas.
Five Kassam rockets are shot into the Western Negev in Israel yesterday
and 14 would be suicide bombers have been apprehended in the last three
weeks by the Shin Bet (Israeli security forces)

Maybe it makes the “west” uncomfortable knowing that if they pledged support to a Hamas government and provided funding without retractions from Hamas to end the violence, we’d be funding terror. Sigmund, Carl and Alfred take an indepth look at Dr. Mohamed Elmasry.

Just because Hamas was democratically elected does not necessarily mean that they will have good government.

Entitled to my entitlements

According to Greg Weston at the Ottawa Sun,
the Liberals handed out 212 patronage appointments two weeks before the
election was called in November. Some of them look to be pretty big
time and incredibly notable is the mention of David Dingwall of
entitled to my entitlements fame:

One that particularly caught our eye was cabinet
approval of the next five-year corporate plan of the Royal Canadian
Mint. That particular business blueprint for handling hundreds of
millions of taxpayers’ dollars over the next half-decade would have
been drafted under the presidency of one David Dingwall, Liberal
appointee and troughster extraordinaire, shortly before he left town
with over $400,000 in severance. #

God Save the Queen, and Her Son

Over the last few days, a court in Britain has been dealing with the issue of the right of publication of the diaries of the Prince of Wales. Yours truly, being fairly ignorant of British law in general and of royal prerogatives in particular, does not intend to weigh in on the particulars of the case itself. Ditto on the politically delicate issue of what a member of the royal family is supposed to say (and not say) about the affairs of state in a constitutional monarchy. Where I do want to attention to be brought is what the case, and the diary around which it is centered, tells us about Prince Charles himself, the man who would be Britain's Charles III.

Nearly seven years ago, the Prince of Wales caused a stir by refusing to show at a state dinner where the guest of honor was then-Communist leader Jiang Zemin. During the ensuing row (as I believe the term is used in Britain), a good many people were surprised and pleased to see Prince Charles' political sympathies; most believed it was driven largely by his oft-professed admiration for the Dalai Lama.

In fact, the diary ("The Handover of Hong Kong or The Great Chinese Takeaway") reveals a far deeper and more well-rounded antipathy for the murderous regime that is the Chinese Communist Party. From his immediate concern over the fate of Martin Lee to his more perceptive notice of "the sneaking worry about creeping corruption and the gradual undermining of Hong Kong's greatest asset - the rule of law" (cited by the BBC), Prince Charles showed his instincts on the Communists were far better than more than most in high office - elected or otherwise - then or now.

I honestly don't know how the Prince of Wales is perceived on his home island or in Canada, but I am fairly certain he is better received there than here in the U.S., where memories of his late wife still run deep. Not to say those memories don't run deep in Britain and Canada as well, but the Prince has the added disadvantage of American suspicion of royalty that's been largely hardwired into the collective consciousness for the last two centuries.

Still, those of us who have tracked the brutality of the Communist regime should take a moment to offer thanks to His Royal Highness. However, the case turns out, the anti-Communist community needs all the friends it can get these days, particularly those as intelligent as Prince Charles has shown himself to be.

As I understand British royal custom, Prince Charles will not be able to speak as freely on this and other subjects when he becomes King Charles. As such, the longer he is free to comment on the "appalling old waxworks" (sixth item) in Zhongnanhai, the better it will be for all of us.

Therefore, it is without reservation that this American says: God Save the Queen, and the Prince of Wales.

The West's Last Chance

I shouldn't have read it before going to sleep last night. It made me so angry - I nearly threw the book across the room! And that was only the first chapter.

Tony Blankley's The West's Last Chance infuriated me. His first chapter was a hypothetical - a worst case scenario - of life in Europe and America in 2007. Blankley was prescient when he wrote the book in 2005, because in his hypothetical, the instituting of Sharia law in Europe was a direct result of protest against 'religiously offensive art.' Wow. Seeing as the book went to print in July - before the cartoons first appeared in the Jyllends Posten - it's quite impressive that he included such a similiar idea as part of his opening chapter.

If I were a conspiracy theorist... but I'm not.

He writes:

The results of these deliberations were presented as a reasonable series of compromises. Permanent, multi-denominational commissions were established to review current and proposed artwork in public venues, with a view toward removal of those considered offensive to the public taste, or to a substantial minority of the public. Many of the statues that had been removed from public streets for protective reasons never reappeared. In their place, municipalities put abstract statuary, including new works freshly commissioned from Muslim artists.

Most museums were reorganized so that Muslims could enter and view works of interest, such as landscapes and Islamc exhibits, wihtout being exposed to idolatrous or sacrilegious art. In the process, many seconday paintings, primarily of interest to scholars and connoisseurs, were simply never rehung or displayed. They quietly disappeared into storage, where only serious researchers were permitted to see them.

Some extremists remained unsatisfied with these measures. They pressed for further restrictions, with seperate days for men and women to attend museums and cultural events.

This is just a small part of it. I am eagerly awaiting my lunch break to devour not only a sandwich, but at least a couple more chapters of this intriguing book.

News of the Day on Communist China

A feature of my blog is a daily summary (with running commentary) of the news in, on, and about Communist China. Stories or features involving the Great White North become the Canada file, as seen here:

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

"A religion without a sense of humour is like . . . "

(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck).Pseudonymous Asia Times columnist Spengler points, here, to a key difference between the practitioners of Islam, and the adherents to Judaism and some followers of Christ.

Observant
Jews and Protestant Christians both have traditions of humour. Spengler
cites the following story from the Talmud, the ancient tradition of
rabbinical commentary on the Torah:

Typical is the joke
whose original is found in the Talmud, of the four rabbis debating an
obscure point of law. Rabbi Feinstein is outvoted 3-1, and prays for a
sign from above. A heavenly voice announces, "Feinstein is right!" The
other rabbis shrug, "So now it's 3-2."

Spengler also
credits Luther for founding a Protestant tradition of humour. I found
the following in what is popularly known as Martin Luther's "Table
Talk":

When one asked, where God was before heaven was
created? St. Augustine answered: He was in himself. When another asked
me the same question, I said: He was building hell for such idle,
presumptuous, fluttering and inquisitive spirits as you.

In contrast, Spengler writes this about Islam:

Islamic humor is another thing altogether. Muslims do not joke about
Mohammed, as casual newspaper readers now know, the way that Jews joke
about Moses. Muslims joke about themselves, sometimes mercilessly. [4]
The best Muslim jokes, which ridicule religious megalomania, date back
to the 9th century and are recounted today only with caution (on this
see Why Americans can't laugh at American culture
, December 16, 2003). But Muslims do not tell jokes to Allah. Unlike
the Judeo-Christian God, Allah is not a lover, but a sovereign. One
does not risk lese-majeste before such a monarch by making bad jokes at him.

One
of my favourite Moses and Jesus jokes is about an evangelical Christian
and an observant Jew who see a billboard that reads, "Jesus saves."
When the evangelical points out the sign, his companion merely
observes, "Ah, yes. 'Jesus saves.' But Moses invests." Then there was
the plaster-of-Paris bust of Jesus a seminarian painted in a certain
way and gave as a parting shot to his professor of pastoral care and
counselling which he entitled, "Effeminate Jesus." Whole books
have been devoted to the humour of Jesus in his sayings recorded in the
Gospels. And in respect of Catholics and humour, Spengler may have
missed the letters of Abelard and Eloise, for one.

Now, as I've already blogged, here,
I'm not a fan of the modernist, secular liberal distortion of free
speech (discourse) into "free expression" where "anything goes," and
which is used to justify a certain school of art,
the same that produced "Piss Christ." But humour in the Jewish and
Christian traditions has long been a means of dissent -- a means of
gently chiding those who have gotten a little big for their britches,
or issuing a challenge to the status quo.

So, I gotta ask: Where are the Muslim stand-up comics?

As
my contribution to the canons of humour, I invite commenters to
complete the following: "A religion without a sense of humour is like .
. ."

"Sure thing, Gretz," said Lowe. "What about Bertuzzi? He's been sluggish this year and, to be honest, he's more of a small rink-type of power forward. Plus, he's prone to bonehead penalties during key moments of the game."

"Ah, Bert's harmless. That criminal charge and $19 million lawsuit haven't affected him whatsoever. He's tough, talented, experienced ... well, he has no international experience, but still. He's in."

"What about Staal?" asked Lowe. "He's, like, third in NHL scoring right now."

"Big deal," said Gretzky. "He's what? Twenty-one? I led the league in scoring when I was 18 years old. The guy needs more seasoning."

"And Crosby?"

"Same thing. Wasn't he in the Q last year? When I was his age, I already had a Hart Trophy." Gretzky continued, "I would have had an Art Ross too if it weren't for that porky Frenchman down in LA."

"Dionne?"

"Yeah, that jerk."

"Right. And I see you have Bouwmeester on the taxi squad," said Lowe.

"What about him?"

"He hasn't scored a goal yet this year."

"So he's due."

"What about 'leadership'?"

"Look, I'm picking my guys. I didn't stop playing hockey in order to sit around and not have my way nor anyone to care what I said about this or that. I don't care that my coach hasn't won any championships aside from the 2006 gold medal. I don't care if the defense is slow and unsuited to the big ice. I already dropped MacInnis and Yzerman. What more do you want?"

"I just think that we can't rely on what was successful four years back," said Lowe. "Things have changed since then and I think maybe we ought to look outside the box a bit."

"Hey, I got endorsements. I got to make a living. I don't have time to, quote, scout players, or, quote, look at statistics. I got to pick this team and it's got to be done now. Are you with me?"

"Yes."

"ARE YOU?"

"Yes, yes I'm with you," conceded Lowe. "I just wish you would take a look at who is hot this year and at who is not. We had a squeaker in Salt Lake. We can't afford to pick players only on hunches."

It's your fault!

Former finance minister Ralph Goodale, who is now the Liberal House
Leader, repeated his party's position that the Tories should not count
on them to prop up the government.

Mr. Goodale said it will be up to the Bloc and the NDP to play that
role because those parties joined with the Tories to defeat the Liberal
government.

It includes fighting to maintain the Liberal deals with the
provinces on child care and the Liberal cuts to personal income taxes,
even though the Tories promised to scrap those items to pay for a
$1,200-a-child tax credit to parents with children under 6 and an
immediate one-percentage-point cut to the GST.

[Mr. Goodale] said the NDP should have kept the Liberals in office if they wanted a national daycare program.

"The NDP can't have it both ways. They have to assume their
responsibility. They've made their bed and now they have to lie in it,"
he said.

You could take issue with the NDP tactics and strategy leading up to
the last election, but for the Liberals to claim that it was the NDP's
fault that we don't have the Liberal's nationalized daycare seems to
ignore that there was indeed an election!

If Canadians wanted the Liberal program, the Liberals would be in power today.

Instead, Conservative policies, a new one announced every day for
the first two weeks while the Liberals dithered, impressed Canadians
with their common sense approach. Lower GST. More money for parents to
spend as they see fit. A stronger military.

The Liberals were unable to fight against that, not while under multiple investigations.

Perhaps Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale needs to be reminded
about the nuclear-powered bombshell that most observers claim delivered
the killing blast -- the announcement that the RCMP was opening a full
criminal investigation into the possibility that a leak had occurred in
the finance minister's office on the day of the income trust taxation announcement.

The National Post steps up

Last week, the Calgary-based Western Standard newsmagazine published
eight of the 12 Danish cartoons that allegedly blaspheme the Muslim
prophet Muhammad. Some Muslim groups responded by demanding the
magazine be charged with hate crimes, and by applying to have its
senior staff hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In the
interest of protecting freedom of expression, both Alberta's Department
of Justice and the province's rights investigators must reject these
demands summarily.

We have disagreed with the Standard over the need to reprint the
cartoons that first appeared last September in Copenhagen's
Jyllands-Posten newspaper. But the magazine's decision was certainly
defensible: Its publisher and editor argued the best way for their
readers to place the images in context was actually to see them.

If the legal actions against the Standard are successful, it will
send a dangerous message: that any group in society can use mechanisms
of government to censor views it disagrees with. The result would be a
media environment that is timid and bland. Even those who disagree with
the Standard's editorial stance should support it in its campaign to
uphold the principle of free speech.

The editorial board at the National Post gets it. This is about
sovereignty, and about the duty of the media to defend it. We have our
rights and freedoms, and they have theirs. We live by a set of
standards, and the media acts as the watchdog, calling out when we fail
to live by those standards, or when those standards are threatened. It
can be a dangerous role to play, but that is why the media garners so
much respect (or used to).

Our standards are for ourselves. People in other nations don't have
to like them, but then they have their own countries in which they
implement their own standards.

And maybe that's the real difference between us and the rabid crowds screaming their fury over the cartoons:

We don't demand that those living in other countries live by our
standards. On the other hand, they are demanding we die by theirs.

The media needs to make that clear. Part of that is not cowering in
the face of the mob about the cartoons. And for those media outlets
like the National Post that have decided not to print the cartoons,
they have to be unequivocal in defending those who do.

You can't pick and choose which rights you want to defend and when
to defend them. The media needs to remember that. Otherwise the mob
will attack when while we dither and wring our hands.

Feed a fever...

An adaptive mechanism, fever is the body's reaction to pathogens; it
attempts to raise core body temperature to levels that will speed up
the actions of the immune system, and may also directly denature,
debilitate, or kill the pathogen. Most fevers are caused by infections,
and almost all infectious diseases can cause fever. When a patient has
or is suspected of having a fever, that person's body temperature is
measured using a thermometer. If successful in ridding the body of an
invasive pathogen, fever is an important protective immune mechanism
and should generally not be suppressed.

Sometimes, for various reasons, mild fevers are intentionally
induced. Naturopath Paavo Airola claimed that, because cancer cells are
known to die at lower temperatures than normal body cells, they can
sometimes be fought with fevers.

That last point is contentious -- the evidence certainly does not
support inducing fever as an effective means of treating cancer in the
human body.

Thousands chanted slogans and burned Danish flags in Pakistan and
Iraq to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Tuesday.

Witness accounts, meanwhile, confirmed a report by Italy's envoy,
who said the violence that killed 11 people in Benghazi, Libya, last
week was the work of both Islamic radicals and anti-government forces.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Muslim anger over
the cartoons was being exploited by radical Islamists and other
interests.

"I think it is evident for everyone that this crisis is no longer
about the 12 drawings in Jyllands-Posten," Fogh Rasmussen said. "It's
about everything else and different agendas in the Muslim world. It's
obvious that extremist circles exploit the situation."

One thing is clear -- the cartoon
riots are certainly flushing the radicals out into the open. You just
know intelligence agencies and domestic security forces everywhere are
taking special care to identify the mob leaders and the provocateurs.
To file the information away for a rainy day.

The REAL reason the Emerson appointment was troubling

It may surprise some (if not all) that I'm bringing up the matter of Trade Minister Emerson now, but I think a very important angle of the appointment has been missed.

Down here on the south side of the 49th parallel, we see party-switchers (as we call them) more frequently than Canadians do; so, with all due respect to Vancouver, the issue of for whom or what a constituent votes is not what bothers me. The greater problem - and dare I say, danger - is what it portends for the current government policy, particularly toward Communist China.

David Emerson was no ordinary Liberal. He was a minister in a Cabinet that repeatedly drove the anti-Communist, pro-China-democracy community to apoplexy. In particular was the concern of the ChiComs worming their way into Canada's bountiful natural resources - including Albertan oil (fourth item, Edmonton Sun) and Saskatchewan's oil and uranium (Globe and Mail) - and Canadian held resources abroad (BBC). Emerson, as Industry Minister, appeared unfazed by this (Wall Street Journal via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

In fact, the performance of the late Martin government was the main reason so many from outside Canada paid attention to last month's election in the first place. We were hoping that the Conservatives in government would be as strongly anti-Communist as they had been in opposition (Epoch Times).

Now, to be fair, Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister less than three weeks. We have seen no budget, and thus we can still hope the amount of foreign aid going to Communist China from Ottowa (UPDATE: whoops! Ottawa) is reduced to a reasonable number (i.e., zero). Furthermore, the appointment of Stockwell Day as Public Safety Minister could be terrible news for the Communist espionage network in North America (Hansard), and terrific news for its victims. However, when placed in the context of the Cabinet as a whole, we are presently, and sadly, closer to our worst fears than our best hopes.

Now is not the time to ask whether or not David Emerson "abandoned" his Vancouver constituents who voted Liberal. We should instead ask how much Harper et al sacrificed the interests of Canadians who - on this issue at least - voted Conservative.

Supreme hypocrisy

As critics continue fretting about "politicization" with respect to the planned review, by an ad hoc parliamentary committee, of Stephen Harper's pending choice to fill the Supreme Court of Canada vacancy, Real Women of Canada has issued an insightful news release reminding Canadians of the overt politicization of court appointments under the previous Liberal government.

This timely news release does not appear on the the group's Web site yet, so I'll reproduce it here in its entirety:

P R E S SR E L E A S E

For immediate releaseFebruary 22, 2006

Ottawa, Ontario

Public Hearings of Judicial Appointments

When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin warned against public hearings of Supreme Court of Canada candidates because she feared they would “politicize” the judiciary, she perhaps was not aware of the reality of the current system. For example, in the two-year period that former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, were in power, the following individuals were given judicial appointments:

When recently retired Chief Justice of Nova Scotia’s Court of Appeal, The Hon. Madam Justice Constance Glube appeared as a witness on November 15, 2005 before the House of Commons Justice Committee which was reviewing the judicial appointments system, she acknowledged in her testimony that the judicial appointment system must be changed because the appointments were based not on merit, but rather on political considerations.This marked the first time that a chief justice in Canada has publicly challenged the appointment system of judges.

On December 1, 2005, Chief Justice McLachlin stated in a speech given to the law students at the University of Wellington, New Zealand that judges may render their opinions based on ‘unwritten’ Constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion.She defined unwritten norms as those ‘essential to a nation’s history, identity, values and legal systems.’Such norms, according to Judge McLachlin, could be properly understood and interpreted by appointed judges.

Under these circumstances, the introduction of public hearings of proposed Supreme Court of Canada judges is not only a reasonable procedure, but a necessary one in view of the authority and power now assumed by the Supreme Court of Canada over the lives of ordinary Canadians.

Still Babies After All These Years

It's good to know the election of the Conservatives hasn't changed Canadians one bit. We're still childish, whiny and self-absorbed. From Canwest today:

Canada is not getting enough recognition or appreciation for the work it is doing in Afghanistan, something Peter MacKay says he hopes to remedy. As the new Foreign Affairs Minister leaves on his first trip overseas, he plans to push for kudos from Britain, NATO and European Union allies, some of whom have soldiers operating under Canadian command in Afghanistan. "Our role ... is one that we should be very, very proud of and I know that it's sometimes appreciated, but it's not often expressed in a way that Canadians here at home and in the larger global community recognize just how significant that contribution has been," he said in an interview with CanWest News Service this week. "I hope to reiterate this during my time in England that Canada's role be recognized and that there be value expressed ... for the increased role that we are playing."

I had so hoped, when the Liberals got the boot, that things would change. I hoped we would grow up, stop embarrassing ourselves and begin to participate like adults in the War on Jihadists. So far...no good.Still, what can we expect from Peter MacKay? I try to stay away from talking about politician's private lives (except when a filthy joke can be made), because it really shouldn't matter. But last year, when he put his private life on display, and pulled that simpering, "Poor me, look at me in my rubber boots with my dog," act, I thought, "Oh Lord, keep that man away from the halls of power."Soldiers don't fight so that people will say "Hurrah for you!" And if they do, they're in it for the wrong reason. Yes, we should appreciate our military -- I am second to none in that appreciation. But all glory, as a somewhat famous soldier named George Patton once said, is fleeting. What isn't fleeting is freedom. That's what they're fighting for.

Greetings From America

Afternoon to everyone.

For those unfamiliar with me, my name is D.J. McGuire, co-founder of the China e-Lobby, and President of the China Support Network. Before I begin in earnest, I just wanted to thank the good folks at the Western Standard for inviting onto the Shotgun an American who found Canadian politics far too entertaining for his own good.

No snorting, shooting up in public

Stop the presses: The Vancouver Police Department is actually going to enforce the law.

That's right. After a decade of turning a blind eye to rampant drug use on city streets, the city's finest have finally decided to crack down on blatant drug infractions with the same vigour that they crack down on, well, otherwise law-abiding folk who happen to be carrying an unopened bottle of wine with them during the annual summertime fireworks festival.

File under: Cryin' Shame!

CALGARY - Local Muslims are disappointed the Crown prosecutor's office has recommended no criminal charges be laid against two publications that printed cartoons they find offensive. [..]

Gordon Wong, Calgary's chief Crown prosecutor, said the Criminal Code requires there be an intent to incite hatred against a specific group, and his office had determined there was no intent in this case.

Chalk up a small victory for the few of us left, who balk at the bitter irony of this -- the proponents of a culture, who's defining activities of late have been the murdering of infidels, filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission under hate crimes legislation, because a magazine reprinted a cartoon which suggested perhaps Muslims had a propensity for violence...and they rioted!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Freedom to Read Week

I've just spent some time poking around the Freedom to Read website -- sponsored by the federal government, by the way.

I can't find a word about the cartoons. But, boy, they sure are standing up for freedom of speech with a planned public reading at -- where? The Danish consulate? The Western Standard?

No, silly. At a lesbian bookstore that many years ago had a squabble with customs about some pornography. I mean, if you're not even pretending to care about freedom speech anymore, why not keep your government grant, but at least shut down your website?

Another day older and deeper in debt

The B.C. Liberal government has just unveiled its "Balanced Budget" for 2006-07 and, wouldn't you know it, there are both targetted goodies and targetted tax cuts. Good news for everyone!

But while we're all being dazzled by this budget glitter, let us not forget to read deep down into the government's budget release, where we will find these lines:

"The three-year plan forecasts taxpayer-supported debt at $27.9 billion in 2006/07, $29.1 billion in 2007/08, and $29.9 billion in 2008/09, an average annual increase of 2.9 per cent. In addition, self-supported commercial Crown corporation debt is forecast at $7.9 billion, $8.6 billion and $9.5 billion over the same time period."

God Forbid You Should Suggest...

...that men and women are different. There will be hell to pay, especially in academia.Larry Summers will be stepping down from his post at Harvard. Well gosh, we shouldn't be shocked. After all, remember this?

Last year, Summers suggested that innate gender differences between the sexes might explain the few women in science and math.

Persian Rhapsody

The music of Queen is officially welcome in Iran. (Well, some of it.) The late Freddie Mercury, who was of Iranian descent, and who was so gay, is apparently hugely popular in the country where you can be executed for being gay. Also, according to this article, some of Elton John's songs are officially "acceptable" in Iran. Go figure! A step in the right direction, I'd say.

"Pragmatic" Haniya

I was getting a little tired of hearing about how "pragmatic" Ismail Haniya was, and how "pragmatic" Hamas could be, et cetera. For example, a quick Google search of headlines found the following five:Hamas picks pragmatist premierHamas pragmatist appointed prime ministerHamas' Choice for PM seen as pragmatistPragmatic Haniya Leads New Palestinian CabinetHamas names popular pragmatist as Palestinian prime ministerI mean, to my mind, pragmatic means practical, and Hamas appear to be anything but. Let's look at Hamas' "problem." Problem of Hamas: They live next door to a country they at once despise yet refuse to recognize. By committing acts of violence against the non-recognized country, they make the lives of their fellow Palestinians increasingly desperate and pathetic. Also, many of them die. Okay, so, were they truly "pragmatic," surely this would be their solution: Recognize that hating neighbour has not stopped it from existing and even thriving. Remember Ben Franklin saying about insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Decide, however begrudgingly, to recognize existence of despised neighbour. Find way to co-exist, as many of us do on this planet, with neighbours we hate. For example, stop killing people and blowing things up. Watch as energy spent plotting destruction of neighbour is channelled into building businesses, infrastructure, et cetera. Watch as neighbour, now not routinely threatened with destruction, becomes more kindly disposed to you and helps you more and more. Watch as economy improves. Palestinian territories become less of a hellhole.And so on. Instead, the following has been their solution: Continue to threaten destruction of apparently non-recognizable/non-existent country. Continue to blow self and others up. Continue on path to hell. So how "pragmatic" could they truly be? Well, apparently very. I looked up "pragmatic" in my dictionary, and here is what I found:

Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them. Archaic -- Active in an officious or meddlesome way. Dogmatic; dictatorial.

Hmm. The archaic definition fits! Every day you learn something. Back to the current definition, however, the folks at Honest Reporting have an analysis of just how "pragmatic" Haniya and Hamas truly are.